Moreover, as she would appoint her councilors to evaluate the documents, if Moray thought they needed to be translated, why not English rather than Scots? The regent’s inexplicable decision about the language in which he forwarded them raises the possibility that the originals were in Scots, or mostly in Scots, and that he was waiting to learn if they could be utilized at the inquiry before troubling to have them rendered into French. If so, Mary could not have composed them because she was not then able to write in Scots. Less than a month after sending the translated copies to Elizabeth, Moray indicated that her response, which is not extant, pleased him and that he should be ready to participate in the hearing as soon as she named the place and time.
On 14 October 1568 at York, Moray stated his intention to attach an Eik or additional evidence to his case during a subsequent session. Mary’s representatives were aware of Moray’s private discussions with the English commissioners, but their replication on the 16th responded only to his official comments. They stated in this document that an assize acquitted Orkney of murder and that most of the nobility, including some of her opponents at the English inquiry, approved the marriage. The confederates, they alleged incorrectly, did not appear to oppose the alliance until they began plotting with Balfour and others to capture her and Orkney at Borthwick Castle. Then at Lochleven, Lindsay so frightened the imprisoned queen that she was forced to abdicate, but once liberated, she revoked her renunciation of the throne.
On the 22nd because Elizabeth decided she needed to confer with individuals from both sides, Lethington, Makgill, Herries and Leslie journeyed to her court. On that same day, Sussex warned Cecil that if Moray charged Mary with Henry’s murder, she would deny it and accuse her brother and his colleagues of complicity in it. He believed Moray would forego defaming her if she agreed to surrender her crown, confirm him in the regency, and remain in England. On the other hand, Sussex continued, her supposed allies, the Hamiltons, whose leader Châtelherault reached London in September, were charging her with misgovernment, demanding Moray surrender the regency, and requesting the appointment of a council to rule on her behalf. They were willing, Sussex explained, for the prince to be reared in England and might even be persuaded to change their opinion concerning Mary’s release and accept her continued exile. After asserting that neither side cared for the mother or the son, Sussex judged that it would be best for the English if Mary were retained as their prisoner.
Meanwhile, two events occurred that provide insights into Mary’s future. The first was the October death in childbirth of her sister-in-law, Elizabeth, queen of Spain. In June after arriving in England, Mary had notified Elizabeth of her exile and her political problems. At that time, John Baptista Castagna, archbishop of Rossano, the papal nuncio to Spain, informed his correspondents that these queens were brought up together and loved each other very much. Mary had hoped that one of Elizabeth’s two daughters by Philip would marry James. After learning of her demise, Mary lamented the loss of her dear sister and friend. The death of Elizabeth, like that of her Guise uncles, meant that Mary’s contacts abroad were increasingly with distant connections rather than with personal friends and acquaintances, making it more difficult for her to understand or to discover how deeply committed they were to assisting her in gaining her freedom.
The second event concerned a possible English marriage for Mary. Whether or not observers believed she was involved in her husband’s death, they viewed her, although still Orkney’s wife, as a valuable commodity on the marriage market. Knollys even suggested to Henry Carey, first Lord Hunsdon, his brother-in-law, that she wed his son, George Carey, but the candidate she favored was Norfolk, a descendant of Edward I and Edward III, an extremely wealthy landowner, and the only English duke. Lethington seems to have proposed the marriage to Norfolk in October as a step toward gaining her restitution. The possibility of the alliance led Mary to seek a divorce from Orkney. Although she never met Norfolk, she had ample opportunity at Bolton to discuss the likelihood of their marriage with his sister, Lady Scrope. The duke’s subsequent courtship of Mary occurred within the context of two conspiracies against Elizabeth and led to his execution in 1572.
After conferring with the Scottish representatives, Elizabeth decided to reopen the inquiry at Westminster and to enhance the commission membership: to Norfolk, Sussex, and Sadler, she added the ailing Henry, earl of Arundel, who did not appear until December, Leicester, Edward Fiennes, Lord Clinton and Saye, Cecil, and Sir Nicholas Bacon. On 25 November when they reconvened the hearings in Westminster Hall’s painted chamber, they were joined by Northampton, Bedford, William Herbert, first earl of Pembroke, and Sir Walter Mildmay. On the 26th Moray privately submitted his Eik, accusing Mary of conspiring to murder her husband. On the 29th Lennox also presented a bill of supplication charging Mary with aiding and abetting his son’s death.14 Two days later, Herries responded to the Eik, a copy of which had been delivered to Leslie and him. He claimed that Moray and his associates had invented this charge against Mary in 1567 out of fear that they would lose their estates since she would have soon been 25 years old, the age for Scottish monarchs to revoke grants made during their minorities.
Mary’s representatives then began to question the tribunal’s procedures and goals. On 2 December they complained to the English commissioners about Elizabeth’s receiving Moray at court on 13 November although she refused to meet with Mary and indicated they planned to request that their queen be allowed to defend herself personally. On the 3rd at Hampton Court, they petitioned Elizabeth in writing to allow Mary to participate in the inquiry. On the 4th before they were scheduled to hear Elizabeth’s response to their request, they reminded Leicester and Cecil that Mary had been informed these proceedings would result in her restitution and in the establishment of safeguards for Moray and the confederates in Scotland. If these were not the inquiry’s intentions, and if Mary were prevented from answering for herself, they must decline further participation. Afterward, Elizabeth explained to the Scottish commissioners that she would not allow their queen to appear at the inquiry, first because while she remained defamed by the accusations, her presence there would dishonor both her and Scotland, and second, if Mary wished her crown restored, she must be found innocent of complicity in Henry’s murder. The disappointed commissioners departed and subsequently withdrew from the proceedings. It is interesting that Bertrand de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénélon, the French ambassador, sent to his government in December a copy of an opinion of English civilians who believed that Mary should have been permitted personally to answer the charges against her.
In the absence of his half sister’s commissioners, Moray read out on the 6th Buchanan’s book of articles, accusing her of aiding Henry’s murder and of colluding in Bothwell’s abduction.15 On the next two days, Moray introduced into evidence the Casket Letters, various confessions of the king’s convicted murderers, and other manuscripts. No witnesses were called to testify, and no one questioned the validity of the facts alleged in the documents, also made available in English transcripts. On the 9th the commissioners did attempt to judge whether the handwriting in the French Letters matched that in Mary’s dispatches to Elizabeth. The most pressing issue for the English commissioners, even if, as Leslie later alleged,16 they believed the documents were invented, was how much importance they should attach to the decision of Mary’s brother and his colleagues to accuse her under oath of enabling her husband’s murder because of her passion for Bothwell. Trial evidence whether flawed or not had credibility because it conveyed what the accusers believed had occurred and was sufficient to cast doubts on the defendant’s character and honor. Moray’s defamation of his sister undoubtedly highlighted for Elizabeth and the English commissioners the unlikelihood of persuading him to endorse a plan for Mary’s restitution.
At Hampton Court on the 14th and 15th, Elizabeth had a transcript of the entire proceedings, including the book of articles, read to the privy council and six principal noblemen, Northumberland,
Shrewsbury, Warwick, Charles Neville, sixth earl of Westmorland, Henry Hastings, third earl of Huntingdon, and Edward Somerset, third earl of Worcester. After initially involving only three of her subjects in the inquiry, Elizabeth had by stages increased the number made privy to the accusations against her cousin. On the 16th in the presence of her councilors, she explained to Leslie, Boyd, Herries, and Hamilton of Kilwinning that her honor would not permit her to meet with their queen until she was proved innocent of the charges. Four days later as Sussex predicted, Mary, who had received information about the Eik, sent messages to her representatives, charging Moray and his allies of accusing her of a crime that they committed. She also requested copies of the evidence allegedly in her hand but which was forged. Leslie and Herries delivered her response to Elizabeth on Christmas Day.
On 10 January Cecil made a noncommittal statement on behalf of Elizabeth about the inquiry’s results: she decided that the plaintiffs had proved nothing against Mary that caused her to think ill of her and that the defendant had proved nothing against Moray that impugned his honor. Declared neither guilty nor innocent, Mary remained an English prisoner while the half brother who had defamed her returned home with a loan of £5,000. After she again requested to see the evidence against her, Elizabeth agreed to forward it to her but only if Mary promised in advance to respond to the accusations, a pledge she refused to make.
Aware of repeated attempts to persuade the Scottish queen to renounce her throne, Arundel protested to Elizabeth that a person who possessed a crown could hardly persuade another to give hers up because her subjects would not obey her. That, he said, might be a new doctrine in Scotland, but he did not think it was wise to teach it in England.17 George Buchanan also noted Elizabeth’s concern that the example of dethroning Mary in Scotland might pass on to neighboring kingdoms. Mary’s final answer to the suggestion that she abdicate was that the last words she uttered would be as the queen of Scotland.
In the meantime the English officials had begun the process of moving her to Tutbury Castle, which was controlled by Shrewsbury, the wealthiest peer in England who had recently accepted appointment as her custodian. When Knollys learned in October that Cecil expected him and Scrope to escort her to Tutbury, he protested that they lacked authority or friends in that district and worried about security during the move and about furnishing the castle. He also revealed Mary’s claim that they would have to bind her hands and feet and force her to go. Heeding his complaints, Cecil ordered provisions transferred to Tutbury from the Tower of London and recommended that Knollys request Elizabeth Hardwick, countess of Shrewsbury, for additional items. Sussex also supplied Knollys with information about places to stay on the journey and the names of gentlemen who would receive them. To encourage Mary to go willingly, Elizabeth wrote, explaining that they were preparing a more honorable residence for her. Whether it was illegal to move her to a more secure fortification and to retain her against her will, as the Scottish queen claimed, depends on one’s point of view. An English tradition dating at least from the reign of Henry VII, who imprisoned the Yorkist prince, Edward, earl of Warwick, justified this action under certain circumstances: “Unless he acts through evil intention, one prince may without sin keep prisoner another prince or a lord on whose account he fears an insurrection within his own territory.”18
8: NEGOTIATING RESTITUTION, 1569–84
On 26 January 1569 having borrowed and leased numerous horses and carts, Scrope and Knollys moved southward with the ailing queen, who protested this forcible change in her residence during the winter. Following stops at Ripon, Weatherby, and Pontefract, they rested at Rotherham until the 30th. Scrope and Knollys permitted the seriously ill Lady Livingston to halt at Rotherham but forced Mary, who was suffering her chronic side ache, to resume the journey. Aware of her sickness, they lingered two nights at Chesterfield before proceeding to Wingfield, a Derbyshire home of her new custodian, George Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury.
On the 3rd they reached Derby and on the 4th entered Tutbury, the Staffordshire castle near the Derbyshire border, which was in Shrewsbury’s keeping. Mary later described her prison as an extremely old hunting lodge built of timber and plaster that sat in a walled enclosure on top of a hill where it was exposed to the winds and inclement weather. The lodge was built so low that one side of it did not rise higher than the huge rampart of dirt behind the wall that enclosed it. The sun, therefore, was prevented from reaching that side of the building, leaving its chambers cold, moist, and moldy.
Besides serving as constable of Tutbury and possessing Wingfield, Shrewsbury owned five more mansions situated near each other: Sheffield Castle, which was separated from its lodge by an extensive park, in Yorkshire, Buxton Hall in Derbyshire, and Rufford Abbey and Worksop Manor in Nottinghamshire. Elizabeth Hardwick, Shrewsbury’s much married second wife, as he became her fourth husband in 1568, also owned in Derbyshire Chatsworth the seat of her second, deceased spouse, Sir William Cavendish, and Hardwick Hall her paternal home. Between January 1569 and November 1570, Shrewsbury housed Mary for about eight months at Tutbury, five months at Wingfield, six months at Chatsworth, and six weeks at Coventry during the threat of the Northern Rising. Thereafter while under his charge, Sheffield Castle served as her primary residence although she spent brief periods at its lodge, Buxton, Chatsworth, Worksop, and Wingfield.
As Tutbury Castle was a leaky, drafty structure with small and incommodious rooms, Shrewsbury normally used it as a hunting lodge. When Leslie, Boyd, and Herries arrived to confer with Mary, the earl refused them accommodations, and Elizabeth rejected Mary’s subsequent appeal for them to stay at the castle. Ultimately, Herries returned to Scotland while Boyd and Leslie momentarily found lodgings at Burton-on-Trent, some three miles away.
Because of his wife’s recent death, Knollys lingered at Tutbury only long enough to acquaint Shrewsbury with Mary’s daily routine. From the outset her new custodian grappled with problems similar to those that troubled Knollys. Shrewsbury’s long-term concern was the cost of providing for his prisoner. The crown approved a weekly allowance of £52 for a household of 30, the inadequacy of which he complained bitterly, especially after its reduction to £30 in 1575. He also found it difficult to comply with his instructions to prevent Mary’s communication with strangers, to monitor her correspondence, and to reduce her household from 60 to 30 members. An additional nine men were allowed to care for her ten horses that were soon culled to six. Initially, he encouraged her outdoor exercise in the good hunting areas near Tutbury, hoping it would distract her from escape attempts.
Although a prisoner, Mary maintained her residence as a court. Over a dais in her grand chamber hung her canopy of estate with the embroidered motto, En Ma Fin Est Ma Commencement (In my End is my Beginning), probably referring to the Phoenix bird, her mother’s impresa. She dined on silver and slept on fine linen, often never retiring to her bedchamber before 1:00 a.m. Turkish carpets covered the floors of her two rooms; gilt chandeliers lighted them, and her chairs were upholstered in crimson and cloth-of-gold. During bad weather, she embroidered, a task rendered less tedious by her use of various colored threads. Despite orders to limit her interaction with his household, Shrewsbury permitted her, Lady Livingston, and Mary Seton to pass the time sewing with his wife daily.
In addition, Mary sought other indoor activities, sending for turtle-doves, Barbary fowls, and red partridges to keep in cages and for lap dogs. She also read and studied religious material, such as the prayers at the holy altar of Dr Allen Cope, which she obtained in 1577, but her favorite pastime seems to have been sewing. She employed embroiderers to copy onto canvas for her needlework the birds, beasts, and fish in her designs from the emblem and fable books of editors, such as Claud Paraden, Conrad Gesner, Pierre Belon, and Gabriel Faerno. Some of her creations were presented as gifts, the ones to Elizabeth presumably to win concessions on the strictness of her captivity. In 1574 Mary sent her a skirt of crimson satin lined with taffeta and worked with silver thr
ead that took three months to complete, and in 1575 she forwarded to her three nightcaps or headdresses.
At Oxburgh Hall, Norfolk, on loan from the Victoria and Albert Museum, are three large hangings or curtains, two by Lady Shrewsbury and one by Mary. About ten by seven feet in size, the queen’s curtain is in green velvet with scrolls couched in gold and has appliqued on it some 37 canvas panels containing emblems rendered principally in cross-stitch with silk thread. On the center panel is an emblem with a hand holding a sickle descending from the sky to prune a vine and displaying the motto, Virtue Flourishes by Wounding. It is flanked by two trees, the left with Francis II’s and Mary’s monogram and the right with the Scottish royal arms. Some writers have claimed it predicted the removal of the unfruitful Elizabeth to make way for Mary, but as this is a traditional Christian design representing resignation to suffering, it was more likely a reference to her captivity.1
When in February on his way to Ireland, Nicholas White stopped at Tutbury, he observed the many colors of Mary’s embroidery thread, and noted that in her theoretical discussion about the relative merits of sewing, carving, and painting, she selected the latter as the most commendable. She was probably not clarifying her personal preference since there is little evidence in her records about painting but much about embroidering. Greatly impressed by her personally, White reported to Cecil, “She hath an alluring grace, a pretty Scottish accent, and a searching wit, clouded with mildness.” He warned Cecil to limit access to her, for “Fame might move some to relieve her, and glory joined to gain might stir others to adventure much for her side.”2 Since he described her hair as black, it either darkened as she aged or her custom of wearing colored wigs misled him. As he counted 50 in her household, she had apparently persuaded Shrewsbury of the inadequacy of 30 servants.
Mary Queen of Scots Page 23
